Canton council hears public concerns as developer offers to revert Longview master plan to 124 units

Canton council held a public hearing Oct. 2 on master plan case MP2508-001 and conditional use permit CUP2508-002 for property at Longview Street and Doctor John T. Pettit Street, where a developer proposed a revised layout that would increase residential density and add townhomes.

The proposal submitted by the applicant would increase the approved project from 124 units to 143: 15 single-family detached homes, 80 townhomes and 48 duplex units. Planning staff told council the applicant also requested a variance reducing the city’s required minimum percent of land area for single-family detached uses from 25% to 15%. Mr. Green, planning staff, noted the city engineer said the submitted traffic study did not take into account the effects the development may have on Longview Street and that roadway improvements such as turn lanes may be required.

Neighbors who live on Longview Drive described the road as narrow, without shoulders or safe pullouts, and said existing utilities and the sewer line are antiquated. Doc Evans, who said he lives at 640 Longview Drive, told council that sign notification was hard to see, that traffic and emergency access on Longview are unsafe and that water and power systems “do not provide room for any growth” until upgrades are made. Jerry Yerby and other residents said the existing sewer in the area is in terracotta pipe about 50 years old and described repeated failures; residents pressed staff to verify sewer capacity and routing for any new tie-ins. Several speakers, including Addison Brown and Cody (731 Longview Drive), urged that infrastructure upgrades be completed before development proceeds.

Applicant representatives said topography and rock on the site drove the design choice for townhomes. Valentin Torres of Gamesa Properties said rock and steep grades make typical single-family construction difficult on parts of the site. Civil engineer Owen Herbert explained that townhomes were proposed because of constructability concerns tied to site elevation changes. Counsel for the applicant, Henry Bailey, said the applicant heard neighborhood concerns at a recent public input meeting and has offered concessions: reducing the unit count back to 124 units — the amount already approved under the prior master plan — to avoid creating a second access to Longview Street.

Council members asked staff and the applicant to clarify conditions tied to the original approval. Planning staff reviewed the eight conditions attached to the approved master plan, including limits to 124 units and the original unit mix (96 single-family detached homes and 28 duplexes), minimum lot sizes, requirements that streets and stormwater be maintained by a homeowners association, a requirement that the development be gated with private interior roads, adherence to the International Fire Code, and a prior developer commitment to donate $800 per unit to the city affordable housing fund. Staff also said the applicant had committed in writing to the Board of Education’s mitigation fee of $700 per residential unit received earlier in the week.

Council discussion clarified three planning points that would determine whether a project would need a second entrance: under city ordinances the project as approved for 124 units requires one entrance; once a development reaches 125 units, a second entrance is required. Council also noted that introducing townhomes into the plan requires a conditional use permit separate from a master plan amendment. Staff said any revised site plan or recommended conditions would be provided in the staff report for the action meeting or the applicant might request an extension to submit a revised plan by December.

Residents asked about tree protections and replacement; staff said a tree survey and mitigation are required, that specimen trees must be located and removed specimens compensated by replacement trees of at least 3-inch caliper or payment into the city tree fund, and that the Native Plant Rescue Society had access rights on the property under earlier approval. The city engineer’s comments, read by staff, asserted there is “adequate water and sewer to serve the development,” but council asked staff to confirm sewer line capacity and to follow up on specific tie-in locations and whether the existing terracotta mains would need replacement or upsizing.

The mayor closed the public hearing and opened council discussion and directed staff to gather the requested information on traffic mitigation, sewer capacity and the applicant’s revised site plan and conditions for presentation at the action meeting. No formal land-use decision was made at the Oct. 2 meeting.

Residents and applicant representatives were encouraged to continue working with staff; the council indicated it will consider any formal master plan amendment, conditional use permit and any requested variances at a future meeting once staff and the applicant provide the revised materials and recommended conditions.